ArticleMaedica2024
Radiological and Ultrasound Findings in Neonatal Respiratory Pathology: Perspectives in Diagnosis.
Article in Maedica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Lung Ultrasound-Guided Non-Fiberobronchoscopic Bronchoalveolar Lavage for Neonatal Atelectatic Pulmonary Disease Treatment: Clinical Practice Guidelines Based on International Expert Consensus.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Guideline
- Predictive Value of Modified Lung Ultrasound Score for Late Respiratory Diseases in Premature Infants: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis.Journal of clinical ultrasound : JCU · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe evaluation and management of neonatal respiratory pathologies require precise and careful diagnostic approaches, particularly in preterm infants who are at higher risk of respiratory complications. This research compares lung ultrasound (LUS) and chest X-ray for diagnosing and monitoring respiratory conditions in preterm and term neonates.
methodsWe conducted a prospective analysis of the imaging practices for neonatal respiratory pathologies in a cohort of 82 preterm and term infants with a gestational age ranging from 31-41 weeks presenting with respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) diagnostically categorized based on clinical and paraclinical investigations, who were admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) immediately after birth.
resultsThe most common diagnosis was moderate RDS, which affected 17 neonates, followed by moderate transient tachypnea of the newborn (TTN) in 16 patients, severe RDS in 14 patients and meconium aspiration syndrome (MAS) in 12 patients. Additionally, seven patients presented with mild RDS and six were diagnosed with congenital pneumonia. There were four cases of severe TTN, four cases of mild TTN and only two cases of pneumothorax. This study identified the ultrasound and radiological findings and aimed to highlight the current trend in the evaluation and management of respiratory conditions in preterm and term neonates. The results demonstrate an increasing trend in the use of ultrasound due to its advantages, especially in preterm patients who are at higher risk of respiratory impairment.
conclusionThe benefits of ultrasound, including absence of radiation and dynamic imaging capabilities, make it a valuable tool for ongoing assessment and management. While X-rays remain an important imaging tool in certain clinical scenarios, their use should be judicious to minimize radiation exposure. These findings support the continued integration of ultrasound in neonatal practice and suggest further research into optimizing imaging protocols to improve long-term outcomes for neonates.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.